Why not he's doing the job. Reforming the Federal/State/Local government benefits/payroll/retirement system is a separate, outstanding issue.
The Daily Journal/Michelle Durand, Staff, 12/27/12. "Supervisor changes mind, decides to take pay."
 |
| "Read Aloud Day" Ortega School |
 |
| "Third District Artist Highlight" |
Horsley's special salary waiver expired on Nov. 10 and Horsley decided to begin accepting payment, he announced Wednesday.
Horsley said he fulfilled his campaign commitment to avoid double-dipping but that his financial obligations recently increased significantly with the long-term medical care of his mother-in-law. Horsley represents the Third District which includes San Carlos, Woodside, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay and Redwood Shores. Read article.
Reference - Third District County Supervisor Don Horsley. Photographs, including the local related photographs are from the website photo gallery. The Pacifica artist displayed is Andrew Leone.
Related updated article - Half Moon Bay Review, 1/3/12
Posted by Kathy Meeh
87 comments:
I thought Obamacare was going to give all of us free healthcare? Obamacare kicks in full force 2012. Horsley is full of Sheeeet.
"Obamacare kicks in full force 2012." Anonymous 2:02 PM
Based upon your comment, obviously you were not thinking, just making it up.
The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care health care exchanges take effect January 1, 2014. Long term Care is a separate care issue from ordinary medical care. For most of us, health care services are not "free". Try Google.
Don Horsley is entitled to pay, the same as other San Mateo Supervisors.
I thought this guy was the Pacifica savior?
nah, its that fiscal cliff. He, Horsley, will be giving 52% of his income to government when we fall off the cliff. All those rich govment workers in california will be paying through the nose. HeeHee.
Com'on, 4:41 p.m., there's no one person or persons that can save Pacifica. The hole's just too deep and will get even deeper if that new library gets built.
predictions
the new taj-by-the-sea will be built with public funds
new taxes and fees will be assessed because we should pay more to live in glorious Pacifica(that rings a bell)
safe and sane fireworks will be banned, CNN embeds reporters in WarZone Pacifica, council apologizes for the mayhem but gets major props from the enviros and their hearts are all aflutter
new taxes and fees will be assessed in glorious Pacifica
the $8 million dollar police dept is here to stay because you know it's an election year, somewhere
new taxes and fees will be assessed in glorious Pacifica
It's official! Pacifica declared a revenue-free zone by our high-functioning council who find commerce just too grubby
last taxpayer apologizes and leaves Pacifica
Why is it that you "fiscal conservatives" put up with double dipping when it's your guys? How many pensions does he need? Sheriff/Hospital Bd./County supes am I missing any?
It's not about need, it's about want and the public trough is the perfect place to pig-out. You want pigs at a trough? Check out the salaries and benies for Pacifica City Council for 2011...and this is after they said in public they'd give up the cafeteria cash that more than doubles their salaries. No wonder they can't rein in the employee's compensation. Hard to ask others to take cuts you yourself won't take, although hypocrisy has never bothered them much before.
Hey, I am a fiscal conservative and I do not consider Horsley "one of ours" not even close.
But, if you want to be rich go work for the government.
Kathy says, "Don Horsley is entitled to pay, the same as other San Mateo Supervisors." Not true and neither is the title Our County Supervisor, D.H. finally begins taking pay. In the campaign of 2010 there were 5 candidates I was one of them. Early on Don Horsley came up with this exciting and heart warming position that if you elected him, he would not accept any of the salary and benefits for the Supervisor Seat. Reporters asked me and the other candidates if we would match his promise we all said no. Mr. Horsley now claims he didn't say the word forever, and why would he the Seat could only be held for 12 years so Forever would not apply.
It should be noted that Don Horsley made this decision over 45 days ago. He is just now talking about it. He never mentioned in advance of this plan of action. He knows there is nothing you or I can do about it.
Michael G. Stogner
Anonymous 8:37 AM, or Mr. Mr. Stogner.
Obviously, Don Horsley and other elected San Mateo County Supervisors are entitled to pay. And that's why Don Horsley is now taking pay, and why he is now being paid by the County. Don Horsley did not take pay for 2 1/2 years, a gift to the people of this county, amounting to about $300,000.
I contributed to Don Horsley's campaign and voted for him, because I believe he was the best candidate; and I believe he is an effective Supervisor for our district and our county. Whether or not Don Horsley or any other elected official takes pay is never a consideration for me, except I believe people who work should be paid. (This is a realistic expectation, pay is attached to the job).
Pay is not attached to the job when you promised not to take it. He's a bald-faced and shameless liar.
Funny thing how important not paying this elected official is to you, Anon 9:44 AM. Hope you're not an employer.
If you're the Anonymous that claimed to be Michael G. Stogner, then guess you're "a bald-faced and shameless liar" (words you ascribe to others). And, contrary to your follow-up comment (lie) under anonymous name, the job has pay (expressed by me as "..pay is attached to the job").
I'm not the same person, but that's not important. What's both important and inexcusable despite your efforts to whitewash it is that Horsley won his election at least in part based upon a lie. Are you actually trying to say that he didn't lie to electors?
"...despite your efforts to whitewash.." Anonymous 10:54 AM
"Whitewash", really for what purpose? Never mind considerations of issues, governance, and candidate history-- are you saying you vote for candidates because they do not take pay they are entitled to? Well, you might. That's your choice. Not mine.
What are the chances Don Horsley was YOUR candidate of choice? My guess: zero chances. But, FMV whether Don Horsley or any other candidate takes salary due him/her has no influence on my personal decision and vote.
What about the fact that he's a liar? Does that influence your personal decision?
"What about the fact that he's a liar?" 11:41 AM
Here's the candidate disclosure with links: Don Horsley. See if you can find the statement that Don Horsley will not take salary FOREVER. I can't find it, nor did issues of salary concern me (as previously stated).
About "liars', for which you have expressed a concern: You say you are not the Anonymous who claimed to be Michael G. Stogner. But you have continued this aimless conversation, increasing the likelihood that the 8:37 AM Anonymous/Stogner comment is from you.
Further, you failed to respond to my 11:26 AM inquiry whether a candidate taking no salary is more important to you than the candidate's political, civic positions and ability to govern. And, you fail to disclose the Supervisor candidate you voted for, or none. While you claim "whitewashing" from me, your motives and your identity are unknown and undetermined.
You can speculate about who I am all day long, but it's not really relevant and definitely doesn't change the fact that Horsley's a liar.
How you can support someone when you have no way to even know where they stand on anything?
IDK, I voted for him and not just because he said he wouldn't double dip, but when I heard him say he'd pass on the salary I figured it was for the entire term. Not forever, but definitely for that 4 year term. To go back on that when he and the wife's income are so much more than that of his average constituent seems shady. Isn't his word to the voters important to him?
Gee, a little anti-Don Horsley BS campaign from Anonymous sources. How credible is that?
Anon 4:59 PM, sure I support Don Horsley (he's solid). But sorry to say (and not that you care), I reject your underhanded commentary for all the reasons stated in my observations above, ^^^.
Really, Kathy? Why do you support him? What specific policies? And how do you know he really meant those things FOREVER (as you put it). Perhaps those were just more election-time lies.
You complain about anonymous posters constantly but suspiciously ignore all their arguments -- probably because there's really no excuse for bald-faced lying.
Anonymous 6:01 PM, and how do you excuse your own "bald-faced lying"?
A. I didn't lie. Please name it.
B. Even if you somehow twist my words to come up with a lie, it isn't relevant to this discussion, since I didn't do it to dupe people into voting for me as Horsley did.
I really don't see how you can keep defending something so weaselly and contemptible.
Anonymous 7:27 PM, oh, I forgot to mention your insulting game is over, and you lost.
And, no I didn't twist anything, I got it. Duh. As for Don Horsley, 2 1/2 years working for no salary, may have been a mistake. Rather than "thanks Don", your comments are trash.
The only mistakes in this conversation are the mistaken votes given to Horsley based upon his lies.
Please will anon and kathy go immediately to the partee bus departure area? Just follow the twirly dancers. Don't worry about the funny smoke coming out the windows. It's all good.
Thanks Don? Really? For what exactly?
Typical greed. Practically theft.
There is no way Don Horsley deserves over 300k each year of taxpayer money.
Don Horsley is now officially part of the problem not the solution.
www.pensiontsunami.com
Horsley promised not to take a salary in order to get elected, and now that he's elected, he's changed his mind?
Horseley knew that double-dipping would be an issue during his campaign, so he promised he would not take a salary. It's not much of a promise if you break it the moment it becomes inconvenient.
Pretty much, yeah. Pension of at least $200K from the sheriff's dept and now a salary of $125K from the Supes. Gads, I hope he can't claim any retro back to the day he took office. So anyway, at least $325K yearly for him or $27,000 per month plus full benies, car allowance, etcetera etcetera. And then the wife also has to be on the gravy train somewhere. This is Don saying gotcha suckahs! Bet he's mentoring our local dopes. They're all pigs at the public trough.
"Don Horsley is now officially part of the problem not the solution."
"Horsley promised not to take a salary in order to get elected, and now that he's elected, he's changed his mind"
I agree with these comments.
Where's the promise? Huh, where is it?
Gee Anonymous looks like you're running your own anti Horsley campaign 747, 753, 753 again. What happened? Did Don Horsley lock you up when when he was County Sheriff?
@810 Where's the promise? Well, Horsley refers to the change he's now making in his "campaign committment" in his announcement that the deal's off. Promise/committment...close enough for gov't work. I think it's quite reasonable for the public to expect a "campaign committment" like Horsley's to last at least as long as the term of office to which it applies. The issue of double-dipping had to be addressed during the campaign and he did so.
You'd think his word would be more important but then again, as he's so ably proved, he's just another greedy politician.
$27,000 per month minimum plus benefits that would make a Congressman drool. And we're getting what for all this money?
@901 Gee, he never locked me up but you should check with the other 753 and the 747. I'll tell ya though, Horsley didn't do a lot of "locking people up". Ask his old staff about the guy.
There is no 7:47, so I assume they're referring to 5:47... He never locked me up either, but he strikes me as some snake oil salesman who would say anything to get elected, but who knows what he'll really do since he obviously doesn't keep his word?
Kathy loves to whine about anonymous postings. Let's envision what a week of Fix Pacifica would be like without anonymous:
Articles:
Kathy Meeh: 25
Steve Sinai: 2
Comments:
Kathy Meeh: 200
Hutch: 5
Steve Sinai: 2
Todd Bray: 1
Wow, even more of a Kathy echo chamber than it is now! No wonder that's what she wants.
I'm still thinking about the $27,000 month minimum this guy is collecting. Anybody remember Joe Tanner, the king of double and triple and quadruple-dipping? I'd say Horsley is cut from the same stuff. It's all about the money with these guys.
"I'm still thinking about the $27,000 month" Anonymous 10:42 and all the other times you posted under Anonymous on this thread.
Yeah, well you're counting a pension as salary, and a pension is not salary-- its a pension.
An elected San Mateo County Supervisor's salary (according to you or some other Anonymous) is $125,000 annually or $10,416.67 monthly. The balance of Don Horsley's term is 1.5 years. And he has not taken this salary (which he is entitled to) for 2.5 years.
Don't like the earned government pension for this retired "top cop", Sheriff of San Mateo County? That's a separate pension reform issue. Meantime, he's a "rock star", and you're just a serial "sour grapes" anonymous complainer on this thread.
The Pacifica salary king should be outraged his tax dollars are going into this clowns bank account.
Where is the rage?
It is NOT a "separate pension reform issue." And it's not an issue of taking a salary he's entitled to. Horsley made a commitment to the voters and was, in part, elected on the basis of this promise. Now he has reneged on his promise. You can justify and rationalize it all you want, but you can't change the facts.
Some other anon: we all have our blind spots. Meeh is no exception, although this one is astonishing. So, part of his $27,000 per month haul is not salary, it's a pension? Exactly! It's double-dipping with public funds...the exact thing Horsley said he wouldn't do. It was a sensitive election issue and he lied to the public about it in order to get elected.
Same old "trash Horsley" Anonymous, 9:28 AM, the following Palo Alto Daily News, 12/28/12 article includes Supervisor Don Horsley's comments:
"This week, Horsley announced he is going back on his election vow, saying he now needs the $120,000 annual supervisor's salary more than the county. The board vice president and his wife have begun paying for long-term medical care for her mother, according to a statement from Horsley's office.
"I did not take a salary for two years, but circumstances do change and they've changed significantly," Horsley said Thursday in a telephone interview. Starting this month, Horsley will receive a supervisor's salary in addition to his pension checks. Horsley retired in 2007, after 35 years in law enforcement. "I'm not a rich man. I have a house and nothing else," Horsley said. "I don't have investments. It's me and my wife and my house and that's it." "I never said forever," said Horsley, defending his decision.
The county was wrestling with a projected $100 million budget deficit when Horsley made his vow in January 2010. "It was a way to help the county," Horsley said. "I essentially saved the county my salary, essentially a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But we've done a lot to right the ship and with the improving economy we're in a considerably different position."
Yes, life changes, and again a pension is not a salary, Anonymous. Don't like the high pensions of some government workers? Again, that's a pension reform issue.
@801 The Pacifica Salary King is out cold. He's in shock.
Don Horsely makes our Pacifica highly-compensated heavy-weights look like they're getting minimum wage.
The specific issue with Horsley is character, not pension reform. His promise to not double-dip helped get him elected and now he's reneged on it. Mumble it up as much as you like, he lied to the voters.
I wonder what future policy flip-flops Horsley is going to try and shrug off with "I never said forever" and "Life changes".
Oh poor Don. In the article he says he's not a rich man and he has only his house and his wife and nothing else, no investments. He also says the county is better off now than when he made his campaign promise to pass up a salary if elected.
Well, by most standards, Horsley is rich. House is in Woodside and he's a longtime owner. Do you really think that's the only asset? Oh, and that bit about SMC being better off now than then? We voters (aka ATMs) passed a 1/2 cent sales tax in November. We did that because people like Horsley said we'd lose vital services if we didn't. So much for being better off. Really, Don, you're the one who's better off. On our dime.
Kathy, I think the anonymouses are more interested in winding you up than they are in trashing Horsley. Just like your incessant arguments with the tea-baggers, if you could grow up and resist the impulse to always have the last word, they'd go away.
"Mumble it up as much as you like.." Anonymous 10:54 AM
No, the "mumbling" of salary/pensions/alleged promises/deficiencies of character is coming from you.
Don Horsley gave a clear explanation for taking salary he is entitled to. (news quote, 10:29 AM comment).
Taking a vested pension for past service, while making a salary for current service is both legal and common practice.
What's the problem? It was a campaign promise uh uh I mean campaign committment, in Horsley's words, and you know what that's worth. Come on Pacifica, you know.
The old guy's probably not running again and just wanted to get it all.
Kathy Meeh, you are determined to miss the point. What's legal and common practice is irrelevant. He made a promise, then changed his position after the election. It was not an "alleged" promise, it was an actual promise that Horsley acknowledges as his "election vow." His "clear explanation" is that "circumstances have changed." Well, that will ALWAYS be true. Circumstances will always change. His vow to the voters could be broken as soon as he decided "circumstances have changed." To put it as mildly as possible, he misled the voters. Your attempts to run away from this fact are making you look foolish. Accept it and move on.
@1133 Nope, I just wanna trash Horsley.
In Horsley's case, lying to voters also appears to be a common practice.
Sneaky Pete lied about 7.5 million dollar surplus and tar balls on the beach to get re-elected
ding ding ding sneaky pete comment ding ding ding
The only Anonymous comment above that makes most sense is 12:38 PM. Congratulations Anonymous 12:38!
And no, Anonymous 11:33AM, the nonsense comments you refer to never go away. You choose to passively agree by not countering.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/boehner-responds-reid-go-f-yourself_693476.html
Wow the GOP don't like old guys!
What are you countering? He lied to get elected and admits it.
Good point, 2:35. You can't counter facts, Kathy.
"You can't counter facts, Kathy." Anonymous 2:35 PM, and dittoheads.
Well, I can read a news paper, apparently you're having some problems with that. And I didn't vote for Don Horsley because his representation of our District would be "free" for 4 years. That's unreasonable, but then most of your anonymous comments are.
Your aberrant abusive diatribe is irrational, so what is your motive? Oh, Don Horsley supports progress for this city, and you don't. Got it.
And again, where is the proof of your claim?
Whoa. The discussion just went off the rails into illogic and non sequitur.
He said he would take no salary when he was campaigning. Now, he says he will. He's a liar. How can you dispute that? What other proof do you need?
Also, "newspaper" is one word.
oh dear god
the proof the proof the proof
show me the proof
Let's see what Warren Slocum does. He made the same campaign promise. Horsley has dibs on the mother-in-law story.
oh 844 you're a hoot. i imagine you going ballistic, eyes wild, ranting and raving at some captive... screaming the proof the proof..whoa, wait a minute...do you go to council meetings?
Half Moon Bay Review, 1/3/12, "Supervisor Horsley to accept annual salary, benefits."
"San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley announced on Dec. 26 that he will now accept payment for his elective position after two years of working for free. For two years he has kept a campaign pledge not to accept payment.
When elected for the supervisor position, he asked the county to pass a non-revocable salary waiver for his work. The waiver expired Nov. 10.
Horsley said that he has now opted to receive the salary and benefits that are considered “standard compensation” for publicly elected officials. That equates to about $120,000 a year for supervisors."
See, Kathy? You cannot "counter" the fact that he lied to his constituency during the election. It's a fact.
You can try and "counter" whether that makes him a sleazeball unworthy of our trust, but you've got a long row to hoe with this voter.
Oh why not? Anyone hear him say 2 years when he made that campaign pledge? Interesting detail to withhold while making that grand, voter-pleasing pledge during your run for a 4 year term. And there was a "non-revocable" salary waiver at his request. Mon dieu! How magical that it expired and grannie went into the old folks home right on cue. Things just fell right into place. Not running again or hoping voters have time to forget.
Haha looks like Don's got a spin doctor working for him.
A guy who risks public scorn to put his aged mother-in-law in an assisted-living facility has locked up the mother-in-law vote, so to speak.
"..spin doctor", Anonymous 3:20 PM
The negative "spin doctor" is 'ol Anonymous 3:02 PM, 3:07 PM, etc. Such a negative campaign Anonymous, when you cannot back up what you claim was a "forever promise". Ridiculous, you're done.
As the 1/3/12 article says, Don Horsley "will now accept payment for his elective position after two years of working for free." As for you Anonymous, you were never on board with Don Horsley to begin with. And whoever you did support would have taken salary forever. Therein is your comparison.
Thanks for saving our County two years salary Don Horsley, but wish you had not bothered. Anonymous 3:50 PM, the average IQ in the USA is 98. With the insensitive mother-in law comment, it seems your IQ may be slightly less than that.
you can't back up a claim that Horsley's vow was time limited or "until I decide that my circumstances have changed."
Exactly. He lied to get elected. At the same time, he's whining that he's low on money from his Woodside estate while sitting on his fat pension, the likes of which are bankrupting our state.
"you can't back up a claim that Horsley's vow was time limited.." Anonymous 4:10 PM.
And I don't have to. The difference is you made the claim, and you set the time limit (forever). And you cannot back-up what you claim. Frankly I don't care, except Don Horsley does not deserve to be the butt of your obsession.
That's probably you again at 4:21 PM. How about you work for 2 years without pay? What the heck, make that "forever". And we're back to the existing pension theme again, separate issue. But then you'd probably like to go through Don Horsley's bank account, delegate his finances, and move him into a Linda Mar rancher.
What's with the "forever" nonsense? We're talking about a campaign promise made while running for a 4 year seat. Hardly forever. Financial hardship is relative but with at least a pension of $210,000 he shouldn't expect much sympathy for this switcheroo.
"How about you work for 2 years without pay?"
Do you actually not see the difference? The difference is that I did not make a promise that I would offer my services without pay in order to get my job. A PROMISE THAT WAS RENEGED.
There is certainly no evidence on here that she sees the difference. Stick a fork in it, we're done.
An "election vow" (Horsley's words) lasts for the term of office that the person was elected to when they made the vow. If it doesn't, it's not a vow, it's just bullshit you said to get elected.
Just by way of comparison, if Jerry Brown retired tomorrow his haul from 2 pension funds would be about $78,000 per year. That covers his stint as gov back in the 70's and now as well as time spent as CA attorney general and CA secretary of state. I believe he waived his salary when mayor of Oakland for 2 terms. His salary as gov was just cut again and is $165,288. Don't know if he accepts the salary. Ah-nold never took a dime in pay. State legislator's also took another cut and now make $95,291. Knowing what we now know, they all sure look like bargains from here.
San Francisco Chronicle, 8/17/10. Does Governor Jerry Brown take salary? According to the article, yes he does? He is more likely to decline pay raises, and take pay cuts. He may not be taking either of two pensions he is entitled to (that seems less clear).
Whether housing and auto are provided for the Governor and any other benefits associated with the office are not stated.
There is nothing in the article about Governor Brown ever "waiving salary", Anon 1/3/13, 11:01 PM, but if you can find that information some of us will be interested.
As for an elected official not taking salary, unless a pledge is stated and signed in writing, my assessment is that pledge would occur on a one year basis, discretionary from year to year.
From what orifice did you pull that random duration? Is his term in office on a "one year basis"?
"one year basis"? Anonymous 10:29 AM.
Example clue from Half Moon Bay Review, 1/3/13, again. Referring to Don Horsley: "When elected for the supervisor position, he asked the county to pass a non-revocable salary waiver for his work. The waiver expired Nov. 10." (That would be 2 terms, or possibly renewed annually).
Your 10:29 AM comment is crude, and does not compensate for your ill-founded campaign against Don Horsley. Both stink, and may be coming out of the orifice you ascribed to me.
New rule: from now on, all election promises are only good for 1 year.
Oh goody and all election terms of office are for 1 year. We should be able to tell by then if they're a keeper. Next!
Before anyone launches the bore-fest about why this wouldn't work, I'm kidding.
Post a Comment